I kinda resurrected the idea when I posted basically the same question. I don't think it should be as dead as it is.
Some of world building is pinning down discrete things. However, there's also an art to how to work around not defining things in your world, especially when they could be world-breaking. For example, many attempts to make exotic science based scenarios open the door for infinite energy because they broke the laws of physics. The really are two options here. One is to try to return to "real" physics, and the other is to try to craft the world to hide the fact that there's an issue.
To me, it's the difference between building a world and building a set. Nobody's going to build a multi-million dollar bunker for their military movie. You build a few thousand dollars worth of sets to shoot on and make it look like a multi-million dollar bunker.
As someone who spends far too long coming up with "real" physics for things, I appreciate the need to support people who are building these worlds on a budget and without a bunch of PhD's to reference. I feel like there should be some way we can support them, but it sure as heck isn't the "science-based" tag!
It might have to be less in the form of "here's the handwaving you need" and more in the form of "here's some behaviors you're going to have to watch out for when you handwave this way." A case study may be a bubble which slows time so you can move Prince of Persia style. There are some issues you want to watch out for (such as how can you see inside the bubble) which are better solved by avoiding answering them rather than trying to pin down all of the physics. We can certainly help identify those.